If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The lockout meant a lot of things to a lot of people, but for the Pacers the resulting collective bargaining agreement was the reaffirmation of a specific management philosophy. In light of the CBA changes, the Pacers' brand of small ball suddenly seemed less like a toss of the dice and more like the strategy of the future for small-market clubs. It's a simple strategy but not easily duplicated: precise draft picks (Granger, Hibbert, George), prudent trades (Barbosa) and prescient free agent signings (West). That's how the Pacers created the kind of chemistry that took them to the Eastern Conference semifinals (their first since 2005) with the third-lowest payroll in the league. With a smaller front office and less money, they simply can't afford the toe-tapping free agent games that other big-market teams can, and what has resulted is a finely calibrated personnel strategy. The Pacers could be the Eastern Conference version of the Thunder, only leaner, cheaper and more efficient (the Thunder have the 14th-lowest payroll; the Pacers have the 28th). And this homespun management style has caught on well with the plainspoken basketball fans of Indiana. It helps that the Pacers were voted the most affordable team in the NBA. It also means that categories like ownership, coaching and players received 40-plus point boosts in our poll. With the new CBA set to start showing its teeth in the years to come, the Pacers are set up to be the franchise of the future.

Re: Ultimate Standings: Indiana Pacers #4

Remember when people were balking about Hibbert getting that 58 MIL? We don't make top 20 in Fan Relations and Players without him. Press like this is only going to be good news for the team, and Roy is a big part of this.

Like a lot of people have said, when you factor in what Roy does off the court combined with his on court work, he is well worth the money.

"Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

"And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "
Want your own "Just Say No to Kamen" from @mkroeger pic? http://twitpic.com/a3hmca

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sandman21 For This Useful Post:

Re: Ultimate Standings: Indiana Pacers #4

Roy has the potential to be the best center in the league. Paul George has the potential to be the best guard in the league. Pacers are a rising franchise and they are going to be contenders in the East for a while just like the Reggie teams of the 90s and early 2000s

Re: Pacers ranked #4 in ESPN's Ultime Standings

Re: Ultimate Standings: Indiana Pacers #4

More "proof" that there's no excuse to not sell freaking tickets. It's not the franchise. The team's good. Bunch of milkdrinkers. Exciting dunkers. Tickets are dirt cheap. The Colts suck. Sweet new scoreboard. Outstanding building. Whatever excuse people want to make, it's not true anymore.

Re: Ultimate Standings: Indiana Pacers #4

More "proof" that there's no excuse to not sell freaking tickets. It's not the franchise. The team's good. Bunch of milkdrinkers. Exciting dunkers. Tickets are dirt cheap. The Colts suck. Sweet new scoreboard. Outstanding building. Whatever excuse people want to make, it's not true anymore.

We'll see how much this state "loves" good basketball.

Unfortunately though a lot of basketball fans don't see the NBA as "real basketball"...

Re: Pacers ranked #4 in ESPN's Ultime Standings

If you stopped there you almost read the whole thing. . And it did say "The Pacers could be the Eastern Conference version of the Thunder, only leaner, cheaper and more efficient" which to me seems to be in the way we are running things, though I do think it is a stretch as well considering talent. I would compare us more to Memphis.

Re: Pacers ranked #4 in ESPN's Ultime Standings

If you stopped there you almost read the whole thing. . And it did say "The Pacers could be the Eastern Conference version of the Thunder, only leaner, cheaper and more efficient" which to me seems to be in the way we are running things, though I do think it is a stretch as well considering talent. I would compare us more to Memphis.

Does efficient mean from a fiscal standpoint? Then the efficiency is what is keeping us from being elite.

Re: Pacers ranked #4 in ESPN's Ultime Standings

If you stopped there you almost read the whole thing. . And it did say "The Pacers could be the Eastern Conference version of the Thunder, only leaner, cheaper and more efficient" which to me seems to be in the way we are running things, though I do think it is a stretch as well considering talent. I would compare us more to Memphis.

Yes I almost finish reading the whole thing until I got to that part and then I was looking to see if this was some article from thebleacherreport people.

Re: Pacers ranked #4 in ESPN's Ultime Standings

Yes I almost finish reading the whole thing until I got to that part and then I was looking to see if this was some article from thebleacherreport people.

"could be the" is not the same as "are the" - it means it could happen given other events than are in place now. You could argue that those actions might never take place for whatever reason, but that doesn't invalidate the idea that the Pacers are only those actions away from going to the next level.

There seems to be a real need on this board to say that nothing the Pacers will do, could do, or could even possibly conceive of doing can take them to any level comparable to any team in the top 10 of the NBA. Even when someone completely outside the realm of Pacer fans makes a comparison we dismiss it out of hand.

At some point we have to accept that there actually are some good things about where this team is, and that "what if" comparisons aren't completely off-base. WILL it happen - that's a basis for discussion. Is it POSSIBLE - how is that somehow in and of itself out of the realm of rational thought?

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

Re: Ultimate Standings: Indiana Pacers #4

I agree what we need is somebody to develop into a star. Possibly George. That way we can get some BS calls to help us out. If Hibbert and George both achieve what we know they can achieve. I would say we are the best team in the East if one of the Big 3 is severely hobbled. Lakers on the other hand, who knows they could be amazing or flop this year

Re: Pacers ranked #4 in ESPN's Ultime Standings

"could be the" is not the same as "are the" - it means it could happen given other events than are in place now. You could argue that those actions might never take place for whatever reason, but that doesn't invalidate the idea that the Pacers are only those actions away from going to the next level.

There seems to be a real need on this board to say that nothing the Pacers will do, could do, or could even possibly conceive of doing can take them to any level comparable to any team in the top 10 of the NBA. Even when someone completely outside the realm of Pacer fans makes a comparison we dismiss it out of hand.

At some point we have to accept that there actually are some good things about where this team is, and that "what if" comparisons aren't completely off-base. WILL it happen - that's a basis for discussion. Is it POSSIBLE - how is that somehow in and of itself out of the realm of rational thought?

My point is that there shouldn't be a comparison between the Pacers and OKC, it's not even close, they have two Superstars(Westbrook/Durant) and two really good players with the potential to be All Stars for years to come(Ibaka/Harden) note that the guys with "potential" are already showing what they can do, not only that but they have a true young core, their top five players are really young and are going to hit their primes at the same time.

Now let's compare all that to the Pacers, Superstar player? nope, All Star? Roy Hibbert, players with potential that could be an all star? I'm going to name Paul George just for the sake of discussion, I like Hill but I don't think he is ever going to be an AS and then you look at Danny(29) and Dwest(32) and they are up there in age making them "not part of the future".

So at the end of the day in few years when the youngsters of both teams hit their primes OKC will probably have, Westbrook,Harden, Durant, Ibaka, Perkins and Indiana will probably have, Hill, Paul George, Hibbert and two x players, so unless you think that the Pacers have a chance to get two superstars the comparison to OKC is never going to work.

Re: Pacers ranked #4 in ESPN's Ultime Standings

My point is that there shouldn't be a comparison between the Pacers and OKC, it's not even close, they have two Superstars(Westbrook/Durant) and two really good players with the potential to be All Stars for years to come(Ibaka/Harden) note that the guys with "potential" are already showing what they can do, not only that but they have a true young core, their top five players are really young and are going to hit their primes at the same time.

Now let's compare all that to the Pacers, Superstar player? nope, All Star? Roy Hibbert, players with potential that could be an all star? I'm going to name Paul George just for the sake of discussion, I like Hill but I don't think he is ever going to be an AS and then you look at Danny(29) and Dwest(32) and they are up there in age making them "not part of the future".

So at the end of the day in few years when the youngsters of both teams hit their primes OKC will probably have, Westbrook,Harden, Durant, Ibaka, Perkins and Indiana will probably have, Hill, Paul George, Hibbert and two x players, so unless you think that the Pacers have a chance to get two superstars the comparison to OKC is never going to work.

Hibbert is an All-Star, and still has upside, could be a perrenial all-star when it is said and done. George has potential to be a star, and at the very least should end up being an elite complimentary player. Hill doesn't need to be an All-Star for the Pacers to compete at a high level, just a very good player, which I don't think is out of his reach. Granger, and West both don't rely on athleticism for their games, decline should be slow, and West should actually be improved next year since he'll be healthy the whole time, and if Granger plays like 2nd half of the season Granger, rather than first half, he very well could make the All-Star game next year too, he still has lots of success around the league, and if he isn't shooting an abnormally horrible percent for the first half of the season he'll probably make the game next year if the Pacers are a top 3 seed, which is very possible.

Yes we don't have the talent of OKC, but they are probably going to have to move Harden after overpaying Ibaka, and if things go well we can compete with OKC, and Miami, though as underdogs, but not pushovers even compared to them.

We're never going to be favorites over teams like that, but we have the potential to be Darkhorses.

You don't need superstars to compete at the highest level. Is it easier? Sure, but our 90's team had no superstars, and we were 2 minutes away from sending Michael Jordan home packing. The Blazers didn't have a traditional superstar, and nearly took out the lakers multiple times, the Pistons had no superstar and won a championship. It isn't easy, but that is the lot of most teams.

Who here is comparing our raw "talent" to teams like Miami or OKC? They aren't, but we've proven to be able to compete with teams like that, a punchers chance isn't out of the question if things fall into place correctly. We aren't without talent either. If George reaches the all-star level 2 years from now we'll have 4 All stars or former all-stars still playing at a high level in our starting lineup. We didn't have the 5th best record in the NBA by accident.

Call it a fluke for now, but will you at least admit that Indy is doing something right if we win 50+ games this season?

Basketball isn't as simple as looking at names on paper and calling the winner, we've had more success than most teams in the NBA, and you can argue that we've NEVER outside of a very brief period with JO ever had what was unanimously considered a "superstar". Despite that we've made numerous conference finals, the NBA finals, and been a consistent playoff team for the greater part of the last 20+ years.